Politics : On Nduom’s proposal for a reduced government
The prominent American jurist, Oliver Wendell-Holmes is famously credited with the statement that “life of the law has been experience and not logic.” In other words, the existence and efficacy of the law could only be tested in the light of human experience and not logic.
Advertisement
And I suppose there is no gainsaying in the fact that there have been numerous and splendid ideas which have made logical sense on paper which have proved to be utterly unworkable in practice.
After all, logic is a volatile substance which is easily tainted by a host of other factors which includes culture, politics, religion, social standing and other experiences. Experience on another hand is less malleable and is easily verifiable and ascertainable without dispute.
A simple question such as “what is the logic behind the introduction of the school feeding programme” can easily lend itself to a plurality of logical responses; but the question of experience is certainly something that is bound to generate multiplicity of responses and yet out of them we are sure to glean at least some which are common to all.
The Presidential candidate of the Progressive People’s Party, Dr Papa Kwesi Nduom, during a lecture to commemorate the 2nd anniversary of the party he founded, raised a number of interesting issues which certainly should engage our minds and attention.
The lecture was aptly dubbed, “Solutions for Ghana: A nation in crisis.”
One of the issues which justifiably came under sharp focus was the issue of the size of government. In his view, the economic situation should invariably reflect the size of government.
For a country of 25 million Ghanaians, therefore, he proposed a government made of 40 ministers. This would invariable cut down the size of government; improve efficiency; and also ensure that the public service is effectively restructured in order for it to achieve its mandate.
The logic of his proposal can be spelt out as follows: in order to ensure an effective government, there is the need to rationalise the size of government.
He suggested the number of ministers at the centre of government should not be more than 13.
The 13 core portfolios should include: the ministry of finance, public service, foreign affairs, transportation (roads, railways and aviation), defence, health, education, trade and human resources (which would encapsulate labour, social welfare, employment and youth affairs).
The others are expected to include energy and justice (excluding the office of the Attorney-General which is to be made an autonomous public service entity to effectively fight corruption) and so on.
In as much as it is tempting to agree with him that a lean government would certainly reduce the government wage bill, as well as the strain and stress that the perks and benefits of government officials have on the public purse, I do not believe he is suggesting that a government with a “large” number of ministers is necessarily doomed to fail.
The determination and classification of ministries is a political decision which normally reflects both legal requirements, as well as economic priorities of the government in power.
For instance, the suggestion of cohabitation between energy and justice is hard to comprehend since every other area of the human endeavour has a legal side to it.
Is energy that special? May be yes and may be no. It is simply a question of priorities. Would it not in essence be the same having different ministries with the similar recruitment requirements?
Further, the mere existence of an independent Attorney-General does not necessarily guarantee independence in prosecution and fighting corruption.
There are multitudes of independent institutions, with the National Commission on Civic Education being prominent among such bodies that has slipped under the radar in terms of the performance of its required mandate.
As a developing country with a disintegrating family system and worsening economic fortunes, one would certainly assume that developing a strong social welfare system which effectively engages in means testing in order to determine who gets what and at what point in time would be crucial. A dedicated ministry and bureaucracy would be required for this.
And besides, there is no point in a government having 40 ministers when in actual fact, the ministries are multilayered and each division under the ministry invariably would have to spend the same resource as if it were a full ministry. It then becomes a question of substance over form.
Advertisement
Finally, let us not forget President Kufuor and late President Mills’ sudden turn around on the issue of the size of government. It is a question of experience and not logic. It is a question of meeting actual needs on the ground and not sticking to paper plans.
If all other factors were held constant, I do not think for a minute that the sheer size of government would and should contribute to the worsening economic fortunes of the Ghanaian. The problem goes deeper than that.
Email: politics_today@yahoo.com